Ideology or incompetence? What's really behind the Obama m.o.?

Michael Ledeen, on the other hand, says "it is quite possible to be both ideological and incompetent at the same time," citing as an example Obama's relentless pursuit of a "normalized" relationship with Iran:

...The Iran policy is the magnum opus. If Obama was so determined to forge an alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the worst way to do it was the one he chose: running after the Iranians like a lovelorn teenager, offering no end of presents, never saying no to Iranian demands, and not even insisting that the deal be formalized. To this day, neither we nor the Iranians have signed any agreement, which has the effect of maintaining pressure on Obama to keep Khamenei happy, lest the supreme leader walk away from the deal.

Behaving in this way inverted both the logical and strategic balance of power between the two countries. Iran was desperate for money, which we control. Ergo, it should have been fairly easy for us to say to the Iranian negotiators “well, if you don’t agree, we’ll just keep the sanctions on.” Instead we begged them to take the money and catered to all their whims. Indeed, there is very little evidence that we are at all interested in Iranian adherence to the terms of the deal. We just learned, for example, that we do not know where Iran has delivered its enriched uranium. And if we do not know where it is, we do not know if they have disposed of it, do we?

Well, no, we don't. Which means that it's a fairly safe bet that it hasn't delivered it. Or, at least, hasn't delivered it all.

So now that we know that Obama's Iran M.O. is not an either/or phenomenon, what, pray tell, is behind it?

On that count, Ledeen is far less certain. He says that some of it can be attributed to Obama's obvious "romantic feelings for Islam." As for what undergirds the rest, he writes:

Time will tell, provided that we do someday get to read the memos, emails, and other records of internal debates. Both in Washington and Tehran.

In other words, who the hell knows? Because, even though we're into the eighth year of his presidency, Obama's motivations remain as enigmatic as they were at the outset of his first term.

Me? I don't think it's as mysterious as Ledeen makes it out to be. I think Obama, a narcissist to the max, has his eyes on what, for him, is the ultimate prize: his capital-L Legacy. He wants to be remembered as the president who embraced the two nations -- Iran and Cuba -- that his political opponents considered to be irredeemable. In so doing, he would become for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan is for the Republicans -- the lodestar, the permanent inspiration, the One and Only.

But, really, Obama is looking beyond the U.S. and wants to be the guiding force for the entire world (i.e. for the world body, the UN).

Ideology? Yes. Incompetence? For sure. A soft spot for Islam, the faith of his absent but beloved daddy? Absolutely. But for Barack Hussein Obama, ego reigns supreme.